United States District Court, D. Utah
Kohler Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
NUFFER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Report and Recommendation (“R&R) issued by United
States Magistrate Judge Paul Kohler on May 31, 2019,
recommends that Respondent United States of America's
Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) be granted and
that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. Petitioners Christian Nadal and
Robbie Bascue have filed a timely objection to the R&R
review has been completed of those portions of the report,
proposed findings, and recommendations to which objection was
made, including the record that was before the Magistrate
Judge and the reasoning set forth in the
and Bascue object to the R&R for five stated reasons-none
of which is material to the question of whether there is
subject-matter jurisdiction over Nadal and Bascue's
they object to the R&R because “Global Sales
Limited . . . was licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives . . . in . . . Utah and . . . the
Federal Government gave these weapons companies[']
catalogs to . . . Nadal and made it accessible to . . .
Ronald and Robbie Bascue.” Even if these allegations
are true, they do not give rise to subject-matter
jurisdiction in this case.
Nadal and Bascue object to the R&R because “two
aircrafts N87TD and N600XJ were sabotaged and N600XJ killed
two pilots” for “the purpose [of]
silenc[ing]” Nadal. Even if these allegations are true,
they do not give rise to subject-matter jurisdiction over
Nadal and Bascue's claims.
Nadal and Bascue object to the R&R because they do not
agree that a person who knows of the commission of a crime
“is not required under Title 18 Section 4 Misprison of
Felony to report that crime to a government
Authority.” Neither the statute to which Nadal and
Bascue reference, nor their interpretation of it, is relevant
to whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists over their
claims in this case.
Nadal and Bascue object to the R&R because they want
answers to certain questions regarding certain
weapons. But without subject-matter jurisdiction
over Nadal and Bascue's claims, their questions cannot be
answered in this proceeding.
fifth, Nadal and Bascue object to the R&R because,
regardless of whether their convictions can be reversed
through this proceeding, they still want to know
“whether the weapons in question are legal or not
legally sold and regulated under Title 18 and 26
U.S.C.A.”Even if Nadal and Bascue filed an amended
petition-as they propose-dropping the request to reverse
their convictions, dismissal of this action would still be
required for lack of standing.
subject-matter jurisdiction does not exist over Nadal and
Bascue's claims in this case, the analysis and
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are accepted and the
R&R is adopted.
IT IS ...